This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

At its test site in Texas, a new SpaceX rocket has self-destructed mid-flight. As far as we’re aware, this marks the first major failure for SpaceX’s commercial space launch program. In a statement, SpaceX says the rocket detected an anomaly and automatically initiated its self-destruct sequence. No one (and no cows) were harmed in the explosion. A commercial Falcon 9 launch, which was scheduled to put AsiaSat 6 into orbit on Tuesday, has been delayed while SpaceX analyzes the data from the failed test rocket.

On August 22, SpaceX performed the first launch of a new three-engine variant of its Grasshopper/F9R test rocket. Grasshopper is a small rocket that allows SpaceX to test its vertical takeoff, vertical landing (VTVL) maneuvers on a smaller scale, before using them on the full-scale Falcon 9 rocket to allow for easy recovery and reuse. Previously, Grasshopper had only used a single Merlin rocket engine; for the August 22 test, a new version of the vehicle (called F9R) with three Merlin engines was being used. Presumably this was so SpaceX had a test vehicle that more closely resembled the Falcon 9 (which has nine Merlin engines in its first stage).

If you watch the footage (embedded above) — recorded by KWTX, which had a television crew near the launch site — the new test rocket goes up, turns 90 degrees to horizontal, and then detonates with a rather neat fireball. SpaceX hasn’t said much about the parameters of the test or the explosion, except for the following fairly vague statement:

SpaceX statement, about the August 22 test rocket explosion

In other words, SpaceX was attempting something new and exciting — and it didn’t quite go as planned. If you’re wondering why the rocket self-detonated, it’s probably a simple case of staying in control. It’s much better for the rocket to perform a controlled explosion in the air, than to fall back to the ground and explode uncontrollably. Even worse, the rocket might’ve had enough fuel to crash in a nearby farm or town, injuring or killing people (and cows). This way, all that SpaceX lost was a few million dollars in hardware, and not billions of dollars in damages.

The base of a newer Falcon 9 v1.1 launch vehicle, with a circular arrangement of Merlin 1D engines

At this point it’s impossible to say what kind of anomaly was experienced by the rocket — it might’ve been something drastic, like a failed seal, or it could very easily have been something very, very small. In either case, the safest option is to self-destruct first, ask questions later.

Moving forward, SpaceX will be poring through gigabytes of flight telemetry data to work out what went wrong. If we’re lucky, SpaceX might release some awesome footage of the rocket’s explosion, shot by a nearby quadcopter — though I guess that might not make a whole lot of sense from a PR perspective. A commercial Falcon 9 launch, which was scheduled to put AsiaSat 6 into orbit on Tuesday, has been rescheduled to Wednesday due to the failed test.

If you’re wondering what a successful VTVL is meant to look like, watch the video below of a previous Grasshopper/F9R test flight.

While it’s highly unusual for SpaceX to fail, it’s not exactly unexpected. Rockets and space launch vehicles are pretty old-hat by this point — but now that SpaceX is moving into newer, untested territory, some mishaps are to be expected. There’s a reason that no one else has attempted to make a reusable rocket before: It’s hard. If SpaceX wants to create the world’s first reusable space launch system, and crack the cheap, commercial space travel market wide open, there are going to be a few fireballs along the way. As long as it’s just the test launches that explode, there’s absolutely nothing to worry about.

Tagged In

“On August 22, SpaceX performed the first launch of a new three-engine variant of itsGrasshopper/F9R test rocket. Previously, Grasshopper had only used a single Merlin rocket engine; for the August 22 test, a new version of the vehicle (called F9R) “

Wrong. F9R Dev1 was in use for some time now and always had three engines. Musk only mentioned “three engined F9R” but it does not mean this is a new version.

I was partially wrong:http://www.spaceflight101.com/spacex—f9r-development-updates.html
So, the same F9R Dev1, it always had three engines, but this was a high-altitude test on which all three were actually fired (evident since acceleration is higher than on previous tests) and this was probably the “very hard” thing they attempted this time and the source of termination.
So I take it back, seems like you were right.

Mathy

It’s the same vehicle, but they used 3 engines this time. Needs to be corrected to say that. Also “As far as we’re aware, this marks the first major failure for SpaceX’s commercial space launch program.” is inaccurate. It’s a test program, so it’s not a failure for the commercial launch program.

shutit

You guys beat me to it, correct it did have 3 just this was the first test that used all 3, and while it may be in the testing process it was carrying a payload for the ISS was it not? I would consider that a commercial trip even if it was testing.

Ivor O’Connor

I couldn’t make it past the first paragraph because there were so many errors. For instance:
1) It’s not new. This has been the test rocket they have been using since moving sites.
2) It’s meant to blow up from time-to-time. It’s a mock up to test new strange ideas.
3) Nothing has been delayed.
4) Why is this only making the news now so many days after it happened?
I could probably go on. I’m not going to read the rest of the article.

scott

1) this was not the same test rocket they have been using at McGregor. The previous grasshopper flights were single engines and this a three engine rocket.
2) nothing is meant to blow-up. It is designed to be capable of self-destruct if there is a chance of injury or damage to surrounding property.
3) the next Falcon 9 launch was delayed from Tuesday till Wednesday just to make sure that what happened in Texas is unrelated to anything to do with the satellite launch this week.
4) maybe you should read the rest of the article.

Ivor O’Connor

1) Yes. This is not the grasshopper. This is newer. However it has been in use quite a while.
2) Whole purpose of a test rocket is to test. Like SpaceX repeatedly says they expect it to blow or they are not doing their job.
3) No. It was moved back weeks before this blew up.
4) Maybe you are correct on this point and that I should read the rest of this article. However I’m not. I actually took ExtremeTech off my RSS feed because I’m tired of trying to correct people.

scott

it was moved back weeks before this incident but it was moved back again from Tuesday to Wednesday due to the anomaly in the Texas test of August 22nd. According to multiple media reports this delay announcement came from John Taylor a company spokesman for Space X. “we are taking some additional time to review the circumstances that caused the test vehicle to auto terminate to confirm that there is not a risk to orbital flight.”
Satellite launches are frequently delayed for a variety of reasons but one delay does not preclude additional delays.

Ivor O’Connor

I stand corrected. My bad.

“Falcon 9 / ASIASAT-6 Launch August 27. 0050E-0405E.”

That time is the 26th in my time zone. Hence the confusion about a day off.

eonvee375

“I’m tired of trying to correct people”

ohhh youre one of those…

Mathy

Considering Elon Musk and a few of the VPs were out there and they normally aren’t, I’d guess they expected quite a spectacle.

shutit

That’s what I was thinking, they also in no way clarified what the anomaly was, I’d certainly like to know as the rocket looked to be performing just how it should have, the first visual signs of disaster were from the self destruction, which is why it came apart at the top instead of rupturing the bottom (my guess) like most failed rockets have, hopefully it was such a minor anomaly that they can reprogram the self destruct to ignore it next time, or they were just testing the self destruct system itself, after all when you’re talking about an erant rocket, taking it out of the air in the safest way possible is probably not something that is low on the priority list, it’s very important, especially considering the rocket in question is supposed to be able to land for reuse.

aufdenschlips

I have been noticing that you solely engage in – let’s say – unproductive comments.

I am naturally curious therefore I wondered “Why?”

I (!) read on to the reason:

quote:

“Maybe you are correct on this point and that I should read the rest of this article. However I’m not. I actually took ExtremeTech off my RSS feed because I’m tired of trying to correct people.”

:quote

Maybe you really should try to educate yourself on the facts before posting something that most with an iq over 120 – and yes the low number is with intent – might consider blatantly ignorant. Or just admit to yourself that your not the pinnacle of wisdom.

If you have knowledge above what is posted in a post just share it and bask in the knowledge that you are soo high above us mere interested mortals.

Hmm, actually you remind me of that Italian E-Cat guy. Just a better grasp of the english language. ;)

See? Just because most of us don’t descend into the nether regions, doesn’t necessarily equals to not being able to engage in such activity.

I honestly wish you more happiness and joy in your life!

—

In most blogs you don’t get to enjoy such active participation by the posts author.

Thank you , Sebastian! Great site! Please keep it up!

Ivor O’Connor

Well an IQ over 120 is not low. So I’m not sure what your point is. Then there is the obvious fact you think IQ is an accurate measurement. I have not found that to be the case. Effort and attitude trump IQ almost always.

Then there is the fake sentiments as you descend into mud raking land. You may like the idea of saying you don’t fight with the pigs in the mud but you just can’t help send mixed messages.

Maybe I find myself much more well versed on some subjects than the authors. Not all. Joel knows much much more than I do on many topics but when he sinks into subject he doesn’t know he just can’t come to terms and say he’s actually learning. Or when Sebastian makes mistakes on this topic he doesn’t correct himself. However I agree with you they are both good. It’s just not worth my effort to help people like you.

And I wish you get it together as you proceed in life. Rising tide lifts all boats you know…

aufdenschlips

quote:

“Effort and attitude trump IQ almost always.”

:quote

As in:

:quote

“”Maybe you are correct on this point and that I should read the rest of this article. However I’m not.”

:quote

nuff said?

Ivor O’Connor

Yes. And I freely admit that. Right from the start. You didn’t get the whole picture though.

aufdenschlips

Oh, I got the whole “I even can’t even be bothered to read”

And why do you even think that being ignorant on purpose does score you points??

Ivor O’Connor

Of course you did. Goodbye.

aufdenschlips

Oh, by all means:

Good bye!

aufdenschlips

re: about 120, actually it is

It is a measure of how likely it is that your understanding of given field is accelerated in comparison to the mean. But derived from your replique you wouldn’t know.

re: ” It’s just not worth my effort to help people like you.”

I would quite strongly oppose to receive “help” aka muddling my mental waters from someone like you. It’s just not worth the headache I would receive for trying to lower down.

Usually I am not that direct but you just trigger a certain “No, just no!”

Imho, it’s quite ok that you are proud of your hilly-billy approach to knowledge. But what I don’t get is that you put it all our here for everybody to witness expecting it do go unopposed.

If you behave like that IRL that is completely OK with me. But on sites that try to further knowledge it is a big “No, No!” at least to me.

—

@the fellow readers of extremetech and the mods:

If you think my reaction is out of bounds, please let me know in a reply! Thank you!

Ivor O’Connor

Well I do not have to look for approval like you keep doing. That may help you begin to understand.

aufdenschlips

Oh, you just get a fuzzy feeling from being a troll.

Start with the beginning:

“You can’t be bothered to read an article”

Followed up by:
“Yes. And I freely admit that. Right from the start. You didn’t get the whole picture though.”

Oh, it’s quite obvious. But the question remains why want it to be out here.

aufdenschlips

If that were true you would not be responding. But hey, I am in a different time zone, so go for it :P

shutit

an IQ measures the brains ability to solve problems, it has nothing to do with the amount of information your brain stores, too many people associate memory with intelligence, effort is part of problem solving, the more effort you put into solving any problem, the more your brain is working, that is effort, attitude is another thing that can easily be linked to your IQ, those with lower IQs tend to get frustrated more easily, that is your IQ affecting your attitude, your IQ is actually quite a useful number in determining a lot about yourself and your capabilities, a lower IQ may not stop someone from achieving something great, but it certainly helps, the best scientists of our time have had very high IQs.

Ivor O’Connor

I agree with this. However I’ve known many people with mensa level IQs that judge everybody based on IQ instead of work achieved. Often times it is the attitude, experience, and effort that get the work done. Not the one that is busy judging others by their IQ.

Thanks for taking the time to comment — and I shall indeed keep it up :)

Don’t pay Ivor too much heed. He just likes to whine and generally be a nuisance I think. He does occasionally post constructively, though — that’s why we let him stay!

shutit

Sorry to be that guy, but an IQ of 120 is well above average, mine is 134 and that is considered genius level, but I’m sure there are quite a few people on here with IQs exceeding mine, after all most of the dullards are probably commenting on an article about Kanye West, so I would assume the majority of people interested in topics such as this are at least above average in the intelligence department.

Jeff Vahrenkamp

exploding unmanned rockets are also kind of old hat. Failure rates for satallite launches is between 5-7.5% from what I saw looking at http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/. I’m guessing that they must do a few more checks for manned rockets as the challenger is the only one I can think of that has exploded in the ascent stage.

Dozerman

I’m curious about the system that the use to actually cause the explosion. Do they load the rocket up with explosives before the launch to assure that it blows up correctly, or do they purposefully cause a catastrophic malfunction in the engines to save weight?

Hehe, I was wondering the same thing. And also whether other rockets (as in, Falcon 9, Ariane 5, Atlas V) have the same functionality.

Maybe it has a small explosive charge. Or, as you say, some feature in the engine/fuel tank that can be triggered.

Dozerman

I’m thinking if it’s multi-stage, they could have simply ignited the next stage’s engines with the lower stage stiill attached, but I’d imagine that would sent the top of the rocket flying like some kind of death machine. There was definitely a decently long delay between the rocket veering off course, the engines cutting out, and the explosion, though. Maybe enough time to burn through the top of the bottom stage and ignite the fuel?

Rocketman

Single stage

Damon Hill

The flight termination system is designed to burst the tanks and disperse the propellants. The explosion was not the failure, it was a mitigation procedure after the propulsion system was deliberately shut down, for whatever reason. The system is apparently shaped charges or blasting cord to slice open the tankage. Beats having an intact rocket falling to the ground and exploding like an enormous bomb.

Garrett Reisman discussed this explosion: We think it was a failure of a single sensor – likely engine related. No possibility for commonality with Falcon 9. “Flight control could not maintain the lateral boundaries of its safety zone, and so the flight was terminated intentionally, upon exceeding that lateral boundary”.

As far as SpaceX fails go, I’m pretty sure their first two launch attempts ended in tears. I seem to remember a video where Elon Musk said if the third test failed he was giving up all together on the whole space business. I think that video was an in-house production from like two years ago, but details are pretty sketchy up in the old brain zone.

grendal

The first three Falcon 1 rockets had failures. It was the fourth that was successful and every one since.

Here is a comprehensive statistical charting of SpaceX history and future launches:

Now SpaceX has something in common with Tesla motors; their products explode.

grendal

Sebastian. I’d recommend banning this troll. He has been in a covert war with Tesla for years. He has gone so far as to create false NHTSA complaints about a car that he doesn’t own. I’ve had lengthy commentary conversations with him and have drawn the conclusion that he is either crazy or has a direct agenda against Tesla and SpaceX. Green Car Reports has already banned him from their site.

Grendal is a shill that spams slander, lies, FUD, and ignorance. Tesla fan boys like grendal fear and hate the truth. That’s why they try to censor and ban safety advocates that tell the truth. Tesla fan boys like grendal have no credibility and are a laughing stock. Grendal seems to have several aliases that he sock puppets with. Grendal and those like him are trolls.

grendal “the car didn’t explode”

grendal “You also said the car exploded (it did not) and released toxic fumes when neither happened.”

WeaponZero “Actually, those things you see flickering are not battery cells but fireworks.”

Albertico “The car did not explode at all”

CMCNestT . “The battery did not explode.”

sranger “False, they are fireworks (4th of July after all)”

NΘΘR “This is not even an explosion.”

Tesla755 “No batteries exploded”

stopcrazypp “It didn’t actually explode”

stopcrazypp “the amount of gas expelled is not enough to act like a rocket and carry a cell two stories high”

The facts show that Teslas have exploded.
Google:

“The Tesla’s lithium battery exploded into flames that shot up several stories into the air”

“Photos: Stolen Tesla Splits In Half And Explodes After Crashing In West Hollywood”

“A stolen Tesla speeding up La Brea Avenue at up to 100 miles per hour was sliced in half, and its lithium batteries exploded and burned, in a crash that injured at least six people today”

“Video shot from a nearby apartment showed burning lithium batteries popping and sending fiery debris more than three stories into the air”

“Tesla Model S Explodes After Accident in Mexico”

grendal

I will answer you so that others can see the contradictions, Jim.
First off, this is a story about SpaceX, not Tesla. A test vehicle was intentionally destroyed for safety reasons when it had the possibility of going out of control. You chose to snipe the company and include Tesla into the conversation trying to draw a parallel between the two. There was no facts and no evidence to support your outrageous claims. The fact is that safety was the reason for the explosion.
My commenting history is open to everyone to see that I, as opposed to you, am quite willing to discuss the weaknesses of both SpaceX and Tesla. I have never read one positive statement about either company from you. Wild exaggeration and outrageous claims abound in your rants which are hard to find since you hide your history. Never anything positive.
As far as Tesla is concerned, the fact is that no car has ever exploded. All those quotes you documented from “Tesla fanboys” are correct. There might be some batteries put under enough extreme damage that you would get what someone might characterize as an explosion, however the energy expended would be about the same as a small firecracker. That is hardly the amount of energy of a gas car fire explosion. I would be willing to discuss the pros and cons of that, and have done so, with someone who doesn’t have a clear agenda to fabricate fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
As I have mentioned to you before that posting flashy headlines just gets more people reading your article, as Sebastian certainly knows. They are often not rooted in reality and are hardly examples of a professional and official investigator. No offense, Sebastian.
I think it is a good indication of your agenda that you need to reference a stolen car being crashed at over 100 MPH as an example of how something works normally. It’s a bit like using this experimental testing rocket as an example of the regular rocket. It is an example of what happens in an extreme situation. This rocket performed as it was intended to do and the fact that it exploded is actually an example of how well the safety features worked. The same is true of the Tesla in that extreme circumstance. The driver would have very likely survived if he had just been wearing his seatbelt. What fires occurred were put out and no nearby buildings burned to the ground. In similar situations with gas cars there have been worse situations and there have been better. So the Tesla, at worst, could be described as doing the same as a gas car in such an extreme circumstance.
Sorry for the lengthy, somewhat off topic, response, Sebastian.

Jim5437532

Your posts prove that you fear and hate the truth. Your posts prove that you are a chronic liar, shill, slanderer, spammer and ignorant. That’s why Tesla fan boys like you have no credibility and are a laughing stock. lol

grendal “no car has ever exploded”

grendal “the car didn’t explode”

grendal “You also said the car exploded (it did not) and released toxic fumes when neither happened.”

The facts show that Teslas have exploded.
Google:

“The Tesla’s lithium battery exploded into flames that shot up several stories into the air”

“Photos: Stolen Tesla Splits In Half And Explodes After Crashing In West Hollywood”

“A stolen Tesla speeding up La Brea Avenue at up to 100 miles per hour was sliced in half, and its lithium batteries exploded and burned, in a crash that injured at least six people today”

“Video shot from a nearby apartment showed burning lithium batteries popping and sending fiery debris more than three stories into the air”

Considering this is just a research and development vehicle it is kind of dubious for the author of this article to call it a major failure of it’s commercial launch program. It is just a failure of a test vehicle, that is what test vehicles are used for to do testing before you use the vehicle for somethng more important like putting a payload into orbit.

Mahmet Tokarev

This is a huge setback for SpaceX. Honestly, I don’t see how the company has any future at all at this point.

That analogy would only make sense if 50% of Space X’s rockets had exploded. Not to mention, this was a self-destruct. Not a spontaneous explosion. They don’t need to blow your car up if it has a problem. And maybe you’ve forgotten how NASA’s had dozens of failures, and quite a few deaths in it’s history. One aborted mission with no casualties is hardly a setback.

Mathy

But it’s an unrelated test vehicle. If Toyota’s test cars exploded, I wouldn’t care unless they used the same technology that caused the failure in the production vehicle.

Keith Pickering

Wrong. This was not a failure of the space launch program, because this was not a space launch, and it was not an attempted space launch. This was a TEST.

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

ExtremeTech Newsletter

Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.

Email

This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our
Terms of Use and
Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletter at any time.